In the last year, blockchain protocols have matured at an exciting pace. Open source projects like Ethereum, the Eris stack and Tendermint are behind much of the experimentation being conducted at leading companies. These protocols would not be where they are today if it wasn't for the hard work of dedicated open source developers.

One of those people is Rick Dudley. An opinionated and passionate developer, Rick is involved in multiple projects. He works as a DevOps at Monax, works closely with Vlad Zamfir on implementing Casper in Ethereum, is a leading member of the Coala organization and is Founder and CEO of the startup Vulcanize. Rick gives us insider insights on Ethereum and on how the project may evolve, in particular, once Casper is implemented and when more robust, strongly typed language VMs are made available to the protocol.

Topics discussed in this episode:

How Rick got involved with blockchain and Ethereum

His views on the Ethereum's planned transition to Casper

The risks and benefits of moving to Casper

The subtle differences between Casper and Tendermint

The recent break up of the Synereo project

Greg Meredith's work on Rchain and Rholang, and how that relates to Ethereum

Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border as he had promised during his presidential election campaign. Aside from the ethical and practical issues of building the border wall, the issue of how it will be financed was also raised by opponents during his campaign. Trump’s proposed solution to funding the wall is either to heavily tax U.S.–Mexico remittances or to fully prohibit them altogether, so that the funds needed to build the wall will stay in the U.S.According to the World Bank, U.S.–based Mexican immigrants send around $26 billion annually to their families back home in Mexico. Trump’s proposed legislation would hit Mexican families that rely on remittances from their U.S.–based relatives hard. The Mexican economy would also suffer as the multibillion-dollar remittance inflow to Mexico adds substantially to the country’s domestic spending. In light of Trump’s proposed policies to fund the border wall, remittances from the U.S. to Mexico jumped to a ten-year high after Trump’s election win in November in anticipation of possible legislation restricting cross-border money transfers to Mexico. Remittances in the month of November jumped by almost 25 percent compared to the same month the prior year, according to data collated by the Mexican central bank. Will Bitcoin Be the Answer if New Legislation Is Imposed?If U.S.–Mexico remittances using traditional channels such as banks or large money transfer operators (MTOs), such as Western Union or MoneyGram, are to be heavily taxed or severely restricted, then bitcoin remittances could offer a solution. Bitcoin allows users to send and receive money from and to anywhere in the world at a very low cost using online or mobile wallets to make the transfer. Furthermore, legal restrictions on money transfers could easily be circumvented using the digital currency, as no paperwork needs to be filed when sending money abroad. That way, both documented and undocumented Mexican immigrants would still be able to send money back home without any restrictions, should the new laws be put in place. Alternatively to bitcoin, anonymous digital currencies such as DASH, Monero or Zcash could also be used to make cross-border money transfers, should Trump decide to go through with his legislation and attempt to crack down on bitcoin remittances. Bitcoin in MexicoThe main reason bitcoin hasn’t taken any notable market share of the $500 billion global remittance market is the challenge of transferring fiat currency into bitcoin and then bitcoin back into fiat currency without having to pay too much in bid/offer spread costs. Illiquid local exchanges in developing countries can easily hike up the cost of the remittance to the extent that it would make more sense to use traditional money transfer solutions. Fortunately, for Mexican bitcoin users, there are several exchanges to choose from when needing to convert bitcoin into pesos or vice versa. Mexico’s main bitcoin exchanges include Bitso, Volabit and LocalBitcoins. Given the liquidity of both U.S-based, Mexico-based and international exchanges that residents of the two nations have access to, the costs of converting bitcoin to and from fiat currency are reasonable low, making bitcoin remittances from the U.S. to Mexico a viable solution should Trump’s remittance restrictions be enforced. Furthermore, there are bitcoin remittance companies such as Abra and Cashaa that aim to make cashing out bitcoins in local fiat currency easier. In terms of bitcoin regulation, Mexico has taken a stance similar to many of its international peers. In April 2014, Mexico’s National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services issued a warning on the risks of using bitcoin stating that it is not legal tender and not regulated by the Mexican authorities. Therefore, the commission warned, “any individual or business that uses or accepts virtual currencies as a means of payment does so at their own risk and on their own responsibility because the use of this type of asset entails high volatility and potential monetary losses.” In other words, bitcoin is not illegal but the commission warns against its use due to the risks involved in dealing in the digital currency. Not surprisingly, following Trump’s election win in November, bitcoin trading volumes in Mexico on global peer-to-peer exchange LocalBitcoins and on the country’s leading bitcoin exchange, Bitso, increased substantially as Mexican bitcoin users moved funds away from the weakening peso and into a better-performing currency. Should Trump succeed in imposing strict remittance restrictions from the U.S. to Mexico, this could become the first case study of bitcoin remittance succeeding and actually become a viable means to make cross-border payments. The post Will Trump’s New Policies Boost U.S.–Mexico Bitcoin Remittances? appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

ChronoBank is an up-and-coming company that seeks to disrupt the recruitment sector just as Uber and Lyft have disrupted and reinvented the ride-for-hire business.ChronoBank wants to decentralize and disintermediate recruitment by creating a P2P marketplace connecting employers with freelancers. “[We] want to create a revolution in short-term recruitment within key professions,” states the company’s website. “Our goal is to make a difference to the way people find work and are rewarded for their labour — doing so within a decentralized framework and without the involvement of traditional financial institutions.”“We are trying to streamline [the] employment process everywhere, making short-term, fair-paying engagements more attractive than long-term tenures,” Sergei Sergienko, founder and CEO of ChronoBank, told Bitcoin Magazine.“At ChronoBank, we believe in fairness, where every person can transact in the value that they themselves can generate, not just transact in fiat currency that’s issued by a central authority.” The ChronoBank concept features a new digital token: the Labour-Hour (LH), which will trade freely on the open market and will be the native unit of currency that companies use to purchase labor from professionals on the ChronoBank exchange. The company expects LH to also become, with time, “an inflation-proof asset that will be attractive to long-term investors and traders wanting to park funds overnight.”“We believe that the most valuable thing in this world is time; therefore, we are basing a currency on it,” said Sergienko. “People’s work time and skills are abundant enough to be accessible to anyone, yet scarce enough to be valuable.”ChronoBank has now integrated the Changelly app within its main wallet software. Changelly, developed by the MinerGate team, is an instant exchange app that aggregates rates from external exchanges and offers the best rate to the user, who is then able to easily and quickly exchange digital currencies without technical hassles. At this moment, Changelly permits trading in bitcoin, ether, Zcash and several other altcoins.“The ability to trade these LH tokens quickly, easily and without slippage against other national and virtual currencies is vital to the smooth operation of ChronoBank and confidence in our platform,” said Sergienko. “That is why we are working to ensure they are listed on a wide range of exchanges. Moreover, we are implementing Changelly right within the core ChronoBank wallet. That will make it incredibly easy for users to exchange LH for bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies with practically zero delay.”In a statement, Sergienko explained that Changelly is well established and trusted in the crypto world. “It is a clean, reliable interface that we will integrate directly into the ChronoWallet to give our users another choice for trading — in this case, one that’s all about speed and convenience,” he said. The integration of Changelly will allow anyone to buy LH tokens quickly using a variety of payment options, including bitcoin and MasterCard/Visa credit cards. They can then use the tokens to buy services on ChronoBank’s exchange.The concept of using skilled work time as currency is not new. For example, Ithaca HOURS, a local currency used in Ithaca, New York, since 1991, is the oldest and largest local currency system operating in the U.S. at this time. One Ithaca HOUR, valued at $10, is recommended to be used as payment for one hour's work, although the rate is negotiable. Ithaca HOURS are printed tokens meant for local use, and there is no standard mechanism to convert Ithaca HOURS to dollars. Therefore, the usage of Ithaca HOURS has been declining in the last few years, and the concept doesn’t seem easily extensible to current trends toward digital, global “gig economies,” of which Uber is the best-known example.The ChronoBank concept seems to improve upon Ithaca HOURS on several fronts: a digital token that can be converted to digital or fiat currencies, delocalization, decentralization and app-based ease of use. Therefore, it’s worth keeping ChronoBank under close observation and watching its next moves. The ChronoBank Initial Coin Offering (ICO), which has raised more than $3 million to date, is ongoing until February 14.The post P2P Talent Marketplace ChronoBank Adds Changelly appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Tonight we talk with Dayna Martin The UnNanny and Dean Masley from the Blockchain Education Network. We bring the idea of crossing The Blockchain Education Network with homeschooling and Unschooling not just college kids hopefully this will take root and be very fruitful in the future.Also Bryan Deery returning from the Satoshi Round Table who finally after all of his hard work achieved Knighthood from the Satoshi Round Table we now stand before Sir Dances With Bitcoin

The blockchain world can feel unfriendly and uncollaborative at times, with supporters of competing technologies often criticizing each other professionally (and personally). But, it isn't all competition. Progress on incorporating zcash's anonymity into ethereum serves as a reminder that there's more going on than just Twitter and Reddit in-fighting, and further, that there's an ongoing, fragmented effort […]

On Todays Episode of Let's Talk Bitcoin...

Recorded on January 12th, 2017 - Andreas, Stephanie and Adam discuss Circle's business model pivot, the cycle of violence occuring on the fringes of opportunity, the release of the first Lightning Network Daemon and the difficulties Segregated Witness has run into on its way to activation.

Digital currency trading company ShapeShift understands the increasing importance of offering secure services safe from the hacks that have plagued the space in the last year, and has turned to Canadian security expert Michael Perklin to step in as the new Chief Information Security Officer.Perklin first collaborated with ShapeShift (based in Switzerland) when he was hired to conduct an investigation of the company’s April 2016 security breach and to help get ShapeShift back on its feet. At the time, he found he agreed with the company’s approach to business. “ShapeShift’s non-custodial model takes full advantage of a blockchain’s capabilities to allow disparate parties to transact with each other with little-to-no knowledge,” Perklin told Bitcoin Magazine. “Their lack of collecting user information further highlights the power that blockchains bring to the world. We don’t need to know who each other are to be able to swap one digital asset for another, and ShapeShift’s innovation in this space was a large reason behind my move.“ShapeShift’s power is in its simplicity — send a token, receive another. No accounts, no passports, no utility bills.”“It has been an absolute honor and privilege to work with Michael,” Erik Voorhees, CEO of ShapeShift, told Bitcoin Magazine, “and having him on board with us full-time now is a dream come true for a blockchain startup.” An expert in cyber investigations, digital forensic examinations and security breach post-mortems, Perklin founded Canada’s first blockchain security consulting firm, Bitcoinsultants, and is the co-author of the first CryptoCurrency Security Standard. Perklin will continue in his role as president of C4, a nonprofit standards organization dedicated to developing and maintaining standards and personnel certification to help companies more effectively use blockchain technology. “Michael Perklin has pioneered the standardization of security-related best practices in the industry. He’s a talented individual of immense character, and happens to be one of the world’s foremost blockchain security experts,” said Voorhees.“As a ShapeShift integration partner, I think it’s great to see someone of Michael’s capabilities join their team,” Anthony Di Iorio, CEO of Decentral and Jaxx Blockchain Interface, concurred. “I've known Michael for a number of years and he’s always been at the forefront of blockchain forensics and security. Directing his skills and experience full-time to ShapeShift is a huge win for their company.”“2017 Is the Year of Blockchains”As a long-time Bitcoin advocate, Perklin has testified about blockchains at the Canadian Senate’s Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and has been qualified as an expert witness in the courts of Canada and other nations around the globe. “Blockchains definitely are a game-changing technology, just like databases changed things back in the ’60s. I do think 2017 is the year of blockchains simply because of all of the work people are doing around the world to integrate this new computer science concept with existing business processes.“It’s just like how companies traded their filing cabinets for computers and envelopes for fax machines. When new technologies change our environment, we integrate them into our daily lives and adjust. There’s no doubt in my mind that blockchains will change society more quickly and more drastically than the internet did in the ’90s and 2000s.”Unlike those who doubt that bitcoin can survive as a digital currency, Perklin sees a natural progression toward widespread use and acceptance.“Bitcoin and blockchain technologies are quite different from everything that existed before them, so it’s no surprise that some media outlets misunderstand it and jump to conclusions. Bitcoin has been called untraceable (false), anonymous (false) and has been declared dead by misinformed people more times than I can count.“By comparison, the internet was seen as something that was only useful for computer geeks. However, once people understand a new technology, they begin to use it in their everyday lives. I think Bitcoin and blockchains will be no different.”On EthereumPerklin is also enthusiastic about the future of Ethereum, despite some recent doom and gloom predictions.“Ether is an interesting token with a different use case than bitcoin. It’s such a new technology that there are bound to be growing pains — it’s the first of its kind, just like Bitcoin was the first of its kind, too,” says Perklin. “Many people forget that Bitcoin went through many ‘hard forks’ in its first two years, just as Ethereum is doing now. As each bug is fixed, the system becomes more resilient to problems. I have a bright view for Ethereum’s future. “There are now so many digital assets — each with their own unique differences — that people around the world will undoubtedly need to swap amongst them regularly.”Before joining ShapeShift, Perklin was Head of Security and Investigative Services with LedgerLabs, a Canadian blockchain services firm that offers advice on strategy, development, security and training to companies working with or hoping to work with blockchain technology.The LedgerLabs team is comprised of experts in Ethereum, permissioned blockchains, smart contracts and blockchain forensics, including Vitalik Buterin, Peter Todd, Jeff Coleman, Hai Nguyen, Richard Moore and Vlad Zamfir.The post ShapeShift Security Chief Michael Perklin: "2017 Will Be the Year of Blockchains" appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin Unlimited, one of the Bitcoin Core software forks introduced in late 2015, garnered much attention in recent months. The project gained hash power support from several new Bitcoin mining pools, including ViaBTC, GBMiners and BTC.TOP, while node adoption appears to be on the rise as well.The central idea behind Bitcoin Unlimited — specified in “Bitcoin Unlimited Improvement Proposal 001” (BUIP001) — is to hand control of Bitcoin’s block size limit to users and miners. Or perhaps, more accurately, to make this control more explicit and easier to handle.However, this control does come at the expense of Bitcoin’s strong and automated consensus mechanism. With BUIP001, there is a number of scenarios i which different users end up on different chains — either temporarily or permanently.Here’s a (probably incomplete) overview.(Note: If you are not sure how Bitcoin Unlimited works, do make sure to first read “A Closer Look at Bitcoin Unlimited’s Configurable Block Size Proposal.”)If Not Everyone Switches to Bitcoin UnlimitedThe first example is also the most obvious one.It currently seems very unlikely that different Bitcoin implementations — like Bitcoin Core, Libbitcoin, BTCD or Bcoin — will adopt BUIP001, or something compatible. This is especially true because the Bitcoin Unlimited team has not submitted BUIP001 to the cross-implementation Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) process; most implementations therefore don’t even have the proposal under consideration.But if not all significant Bitcoin implementations adopt BUIP001 or a compatible solution, the blockchain cannot converge in the way Bitcoin Unlimited proponents envision. Instead, if a majority of miners (by hash power) increases Maximum Generation Size (MG) and Excessive Block Size (EB) to produce blocks bigger than one megabyte, Bitcoin would split into two incompatible networks and currencies, not unlike Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.However, because this split would not be coordinated or planned to include safety precautions, the consequences could be much worse than the split between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.One megabyte users would experience inconveniences, and even more so if their hash power initially represents a smaller minority. This would include (much) slower block confirmations, perhaps even to the point where their chain becomes almost unusable. Additionally, they are at risk of replay attacks if they want to use the “Bitcoin Unlimited chain” as well. Bitcoin Unlimited users would suffer similar inconveniences, though their initial block confirmations wouldn’t be as slow, as they’d have support from the hash-power majority. To counter that, however, Bitcoin Unlimited users would be unsure as to whether “their” chain would continue to exist at all. If the one megabyte chain should ever overtake the “Bitcoin Unlimited chain” in length (really: total proof of work), Bitcoin Unlimited nodes would automatically switch back to the one megabyte chain. Accordingly, they would depose (“orphan”) the entire “Bitcoin Unlimited chain” since the split, even if that chain is thousands of blocks deep. All “their” transactions would be forgotten, perhaps costing lots of people lots of money.If a group of hardcore one-megabyte supporters and speculators can make this scenario seem even slightly plausible, self-fulfilling prophecy dynamics can pose an existential threat to the “Bitcoin Unlimited chain”: no one wants to hold value on the chain that may be discarded.If Everyone Does Switch to Bitcoin UnlimitedBut let’s assume the switch to BUIP001 goes smoothly. All significant Bitcoin implementations adopt the new configurable options, and all users and miners update their software accordingly.Once again — even in this scenario — there is no technical guarantee that all users will converge to a single chain in a meaningful way. Different users can configure their nodes to remain out of consensus for the rest of their lives.As a simple example, a minority of miners can configure both MG and EB to one megabyte, while they set Excessive Acceptance Depth (AD) to 10,000,000. In other words, these nodes will mimic the current one-megabyte block size limit for about two centuries — regardless of what the rest of the network does.Meanwhile, a majority of miners can set MG and EB to create and accept blocks up to two megabytes. Now, as soon as one miner mines a two-megabyte block, the majority of miners will build on this block and extend this chain. The minority of miners, however, ignores this chain practically forever: exactly as described in the previous section of this article. And it would include the same risks as previously described as well. If the one-megabyte chain ever overtakes the two-megabyte chain in length, the two-megabyte chain is completely discarded. Even after thousands of blocks.If Everyone Limits AD to Four ConfirmationsBitcoin Unlimited users can have a stronger degree of converging on a single chain by technical means, if hey keep their AD setting relatively low. The default setting on Bitcoin Unlimited is four: An excessive block requires four blocks mined on top of it to be considered valid.But this presents problems as well.The first problem is that even with this low default, any transaction with less than five confirmations is much less secure than it is now. Say a transaction shows three confirmations in a user’s wallet. That user has no way of knowing whether an alternative blockchain is being mined with a competing (double-spent) transaction, that already has four confirmations. This could happen at any time.If that alternative chain reaches its fifth confirmation first, the user’s chain is discarded, and his incoming transaction lost — even though it had three confirmations.Of course, “orphaned blocks” do already exist, and users that require more security should wait for more confirmations.But barring exotic and expensive types of malicious attacks, three orphaned blocks can currently really only result from freak coincidence. Different groups of miners must coincidentally find three blocks at almost exactly the same time, three separate and subsequent coincidences, in order for the network to experience that many orphans.Bitcoin Unlimited, on the other hand, throws a new factor into the mix, adding a reason for the network to experience three orphaned blocks. Miners not only race to extend the longest valid chain, but also vote on protocol rules between chains. This process would also be visible and quite predictable for attackers, and therefore easily exploitable.The second, perhaps even bigger problem, is that having to keep AD at the default of four confirmations for security reasons essentially defeats the purpose of BUIP001. While Bitcoin Unlimited is supposed to hand control of the block size limit over to both users and (all) miners, low AD levels ensure that even the slightest majority of miners can always overrule local block size settings by simply mining a series of bigger blocks. This makes MG and EB meaningless for everyone else: “placebo controls.”Indeed, AD proposes an odd choice: Either nodes and miners set a high AD for relative autonomy, but risk splitting the network with potentially harmful consequences; or these nodes and miners pick a low AD to improve the level of convergence — but only because they effectively give up control to a majority of miners. (And if the intention is to give up control to a majority of miners, there are more straightforward solutions available.)Under Adversarial ConditionsThings get worse under adversarial conditions. If not everyone wants what’s best for Bitcoin, and instead some entities — for whatever reason — would rather see Bitcoin fail, the security assumptions of BUIP001 degrade further. And the more funds an adversary has at its disposal to cause turmoil, the worse Bitcoin Unlimited’s convergence mechanism would perform.First off, node signaling is trivially spoofed. Anyone with the resources to spin up “fake” (economically irrelevant) nodes could pretend that there is widespread user support for a certain block size limit level, while in reality there is not. If miners go by these signals, they may fork the chain with less user support than expected.Additionally, a malicious miner can often split the network. Such a miner could monitor the EB levels signaled by other miners (which is not as easily spoofed), and intentionally mine a block that falls right in between what these miners will accept. If some 50 percent of hash power accepts blocks up to two megabytes, and the other 50 percent supports bigger blocks, a 2.01 megabyte block would be ignored by the first 50 percent, and accepted by the other 50 percent.Assuming the default AD of four is maintained, the chain could split for more than an hour. As explained in the previous section, the Bitcoin network(s) would be very unreliable during this period, as the chain on either side of the split may be discarded. An adversary controlling only 0.7 percent of global hash power could cause this level of turmoil about once every day. And unless the overwhelming majority of miners already agree on their EB anyways, that sweet spot to abuse the network should always exist.Alternatively, if EB levels are relatively synchronized across the network but AD levels are not, that same malicious miner may be able to mine enough excessive blocks to reach about half of all AD levels, perhaps inadvertently helped by honest miners. This would also achieve a split, at least at least until the remaining AD levels are reached. Furthermore, as a result of such attacks, miners would reach their AD thresholds, opening their “sticky gates.” This could allow for a second wave of attacks. Given enough hash power, an adversary can mine blocks that are so big they may fragment the chain as not all nodes can keep up — perhaps due to bandwidth contraints, latency or machine limits.Emergent ConsensusWhile Bitcoin Unlimited arguably offers more personal autonomy to users, it does not ensure technical blockchain convergence. But this is not new. To some extent, it is even touched on in Bitcoin Unlimited’s FAQ.Yet, Bitcoin Unlimited proponents do expect users to converge on a single blockchain. This is explained by what is perhaps best considered Bitcoin Unlimited’s underlying philosophy: “Emergent Consensus.” Rather than a purely technical mechanism, Emergent Consensus is a conviction that all participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem have a strong enough (economic) incentive to find consensus on a single blockchain, even if their software does not automatically realize this.The next article will take a closer look at this Emergent Consensus philosophy.Author’s note: This article is not a complete overview of all the problems that could result from BUIP001. Most importantly, it ignores trade-offs and weaknesses that derive from an oversized (or floating) block size limit itself, like node centralization, miner centralization, or fee economics, to instead focus on (a lack of) blockchain convergence.“Jonny1000” contributed to this article.The post How Bitcoin Unlimited Users May End Up on Different Blockchains appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

-Alejandro has been in bitcoin since early 2013. He saw many challenges facing bitcoin adoption so decided to create a few things to help adoption, one of them being a company that was eventually acquired by Blocktrail in 2014. Bitmain Technologies then acquires Blocktrail in 2016. Blocktrail has now re-branded to BTC.com. We provide a bitcoin wallet, mining pool, API and block explorer.

-Jordan Page is an American recording artist who performs a mixture of rock and folk music that has captivated audiences all over the US. He is known for headlining at major protests and rallies in support of freedom, peace, and limited government. His lyrical poetry is as poignant as it is spiritual, and is matched only by his incredible guitar skills. Jordan has headlined at hundreds of political events since 2008 and is known as a leading voice of liberty in America. Jordan shared the stage with Congressman Ron Paul 18 times on the presidential campaign trail including the Revolution March in 08', the Iowa Straw Poll in 11', and the Sun Dome Rally in Tampa at the RNC in 12'. He has performed live on CSPAN numerous times at major events as well as television programs including Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano and FOX Strategy Room. Jordan is the host of a popular internet radio show "Page Against the Machine," and is also a regular guest on political talk shows including Huffington Post Live, Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock. He was listed by the Washington Post as the most popular artist among Ron Paul supporters in 2012 and his fearless and iconic anthems Liberty, Message of Freedom, and Pendulum continue to inspire freedom-loving people to stand up against corruption and immoral wars.

More Info:

http://ift.tt/20rdAOD

http://ift.tt/1QGHHcI

http://ift.tt/2cxdyRw

http://www.BTC.com

http://ift.tt/1hKUH2n

http://ift.tt/2jVkGJ4

Friends and Sponsors of the Show:

http://ift.tt/2fcpxGE (Use the code "tatiana" at checkout to get 10% off the ticket price!)

If the gossip at a recent invite-only bitcoin conference is any indication, news may be forthcoming in the long-simmering Satoshi Nakamoto saga. On the sidelines of the two-day Satoshi Roundtable conference in Cancun, rumors were swirling that new developments in the 'Who is Satoshi?' story once again relate to the controversial Australian academic and entrepreneur Craig Wright, who last May […]

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

Tonight Christopher Hering of BlockPay fills us in on the Point Of Sale services provided by BlockPay as well as their up coming services in the works in the very near future.The second hour we talk with Andrew Wagner about his event CoinFest which is a Virtual Bitcoin Conference held over a weeks time with participants from around the world including us.

After the successful Ethereum crowdfunding campaign, musician and web developer Peter Harris saw a path to creating a fair, decentralized music streaming platform. Out of that Resonate was born. Peter joined us to discuss why the dysfunctional structure of the music industry results in a bad deal for musicians and why a decentralized platform supported by blockchain technology and run as a cooperative represents a better way forward.